News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
News
Tesla launches new Model 3 financing deal with awesome savings
Tesla is now offering a 0.99% APR financing option for all new Model 3 orders in the United States, and it applies to all loan terms of up to 72 months.
Tesla has launched a new Model 3 financing deal in the United States that brings awesome savings. The deal looks to move more of the company’s mass-market sedan as it is the second-most popular vehicle Tesla offers, behind its sibling, the Model Y.
Tesla is now offering a 0.99% APR financing option for all new Model 3 orders in the United States, and it applies to all loan terms of up to 72 months.
It includes three Model 3 configurations, including the Model 3 Performance. The rate applies to:
- Model 3 Premium Rear-Wheel-Drive
- Model 3 Premium All-Wheel-Drive
- Model 3 Performance
The previous APR offer was 2.99%.
NEWS: Tesla has introduced 0.99% APR financing for all new Model 3 orders in the U.S. (applies to loan terms of up to 72 months).
This includes:
• Model 3 RWD
• Model 3 Premium RWD
• Model 3 Premium AWD
• Model 3 PerformanceTesla was previously offering 2.99% APR. pic.twitter.com/A1ZS25C9gM
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 15, 2026
Tesla routinely utilizes low-interest offers to help move vehicles, especially as the rates can help get people to payments that are more comfortable with their monthly budgets. Along with other savings, like those on maintenance and gas, this is another way Tesla pushes savings to customers.
The company had offered a similar program in China on the Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, but it had ended on January 31.
The Model 3 was the second-best-selling electric vehicle in the United States in 2025, trailing only the Model Y. According to automotive data provided by Cox, Tesla sold 192,440 units last year of the all-electric sedan. The Model Y sold 357,528 units.
News
Tesla hasn’t adopted Apple CarPlay yet for this shocking reason
Many Apple and iPhone users have wanted the addition, especially to utilize third-party Navigation apps like Waze, which is a popular alternative. Getting apps outside of Tesla’s Navigation to work with its Full Self-Driving suite seems to be a potential issue the company will have to work through as well.
Perhaps one of the most requested features for Tesla vehicles by owners is the addition of Apple CarPlay. It sounds like the company wants to bring the popular UI to its cars, but there are a few bottlenecks preventing it from doing so.
The biggest reason why CarPlay has not made its way to Teslas yet might shock you.
According to Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, Tesla is still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles. There are two primary reasons why Tesla has not done it quite yet: App compatibility issues and, most importantly, there are incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
iOS 26 is Apple’s most recent software version, which was released back in September 2025. It introduced a major redesign to the overall operating system, especially its aesthetic, with the rollout of “Liquid Glass.”
However, despite the many changes and updates, Apple users have not been too keen on the iOS 26 update, and the low adoption rates have been a major sticking point for Tesla as it looks to develop a potential alternative for its in-house UI.
It was first rumored that Tesla was planning to bring CarPlay out in its cars late last year. Many Apple and iPhone users have wanted the addition, especially to utilize third-party Navigation apps like Waze, which is a popular alternative. Getting apps outside of Tesla’s Navigation to work with its Full Self-Driving suite seems to be a potential issue the company will have to work through as well.
According to the report, Tesla asked Apple to make some changes to improve compatibility between its software and Apple Maps:
“Tesla asked Apple to make engineering changes to Maps to improve compatibility. The iPhone maker agreed and implemented the adjustments in a bug fix update to iOS 26 and the latest version of CarPlay.”
Gurman also said that there were some issues with turn-by-turn guidance from Tesla’s maps app, and it did not properly sync up with Apple Maps during FSD operation. This is something that needs to be resolved before it is rolled out.
There is no listed launch date, nor has there been any coding revealed that would indicate Apple CarPlay is close to being launched within Tesla vehicles.
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
Tesla launches new Model 3 financing deal with awesome savings
